VWVortex.com - Turbos don't save fuel (Jason Camissa video)
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 130

    Thread: Turbos don't save fuel (Jason Camissa video)

    1. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      East-10EC
      Posts
      79,654
      Vehicles
      '18 RCSB EB F150
      11-19-2019 01:16 PM #1
      He missed the part about manufacturers doing this under the guise of fuel savings because it actually costs them less to make turbo fours than larger V engines.


    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      11,262
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      11-19-2019 01:23 PM #2
      Haven't yet watched the video (thanks for the link), but I agree 100% with the headline. Any turbo I've ever driven has gotten worse mileage than a comparable-power producing NA engine. Nonetheless, I do love turbos for a variety of reasons.

    4. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 10th, 2003
      Location
      Barrie,On.
      Posts
      10,927
      Vehicles
      '09 335d
      11-19-2019 01:26 PM #3
      Ecoboost is a great example of this.

    5. Member
      Join Date
      Nov 3rd, 2015
      Location
      So MD
      Posts
      594
      Vehicles
      2010 Audi S4
      11-19-2019 01:27 PM #4
      So what if I buy the big engine WITH the force induction? Bonus points?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    6. Geriatric Member absoluteczech's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 12th, 2006
      Location
      The Orange Crush
      Posts
      40,369
      Vehicles
      '18 Mazda CX-5
      11-19-2019 01:27 PM #5
      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      Haven't yet watched the video (thanks for the link), but I agree 100% with the headline. Any turbo I've ever driven has gotten worse mileage than a comparable-power producing NA engine. Nonetheless, I do love turbos for a variety of reasons.
      I disagree. e46 330ci was around 220-230hp 3l inline 6 and was estimated at 20 city 30 highway. Take a mk7 gti that has around same hp and it will definitely get better mpg

    7. 11-19-2019 01:28 PM #6
      In horrible stop and go tampa traffic, get around 18-22 mpg in the mk6 GTI, I should have took the time to find a 2011 Civic Si

      But the mk7 seems more improved compared to the gen 1 tsi and also fsi

    8. Member Rav_VW's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2005
      Location
      Philly Burbs
      Posts
      1,685
      Vehicles
      135i, A6_3.0, XC40
      11-19-2019 01:29 PM #7
      Can't watch at work, is he just comparing peak horsepower, or also torque/power curves? Displacement?

    9. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      2,710
      Vehicles
      982, F22, E88, etc.
      11-19-2019 01:29 PM #8
      I mean, everything he says is correct, but I don't think Jason's ever been a fan of turbos and this comes off a bit like rhetoric to me. Most people spend more time getting where they're going than hooning, and turbos still give them the on-ramp power they want. Moreover, advances like water-cooled integrated exhaust manifolds have done a lot to curb the super-rich high boost fuel burn; I think we'll see more of that moving forward.
      Last edited by ghost03; 11-19-2019 at 01:31 PM.

    10. Member CostcoPizza's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 20th, 2008
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      6,440
      Vehicles
      '12 MINI Clubman S '99 BMW 328ic
      11-19-2019 01:30 PM #9
      Never knew Adam Sandler was a fan of naturally aspirated motors.

      On a serious note, you can blame most of this on China and their displacement tax no? Everyone wants to sell cars there and thus chops bigger displacement motor for turbo 2.0s.

    11. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-19-2019 01:33 PM #10
      Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
      I disagree. e46 330ci was around 220-230hp 3l inline 6 and was estimated at 20 city 30 highway. Take a mk7 gti that has around same hp and it will definitely get better mpg
      How does that work when you start beating on them? I'd be willing to bet the Mk7 burns more fuel at the track than the 330ci.
      Instagram - efrie004

    12. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      11,262
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      11-19-2019 01:34 PM #11
      Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
      I disagree. e46 330ci was around 220-230hp 3l inline 6 and was estimated at 20 city 30 highway. Take a mk7 gti that has around same hp and it will definitely get better mpg
      You're comparing very different generations. I mean our 1972 Oldsmobile with a 350 V8 did like 10 mpg and put of maybe 160hp? And don't forget the role of transmission in that as well. Apples to apples though, and I doubt you'll see much of a improvement if any in a 2.0T 4 versus something like an NA 3.0 NA V6 producing comparable power. There;s obviously a lower limit to what you can do with an NA, but for a typical road car, a turbo isn't giving you anything in terms of mpg.

    13. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      11,262
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      11-19-2019 01:37 PM #12
      Quote Originally Posted by CostcoPizza View Post
      Never knew Adam Sandler was a fan of naturally aspirated motors.

      I'm pretty sure that "Jason Cammisa" is just Adam Sandler's pen name.

    14. Member Jimmy Russells's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 4th, 2007
      Location
      Vancouver
      Posts
      16,187
      Vehicles
      RS3, JKU
      11-19-2019 01:38 PM #13
      They definitely seem to get better highway mileage, at least IME. However around town, not so much. Maybe they can make the larger n/a stuff do better with cylinder deactivation now, I've never owned one.

    15. Geriatric Member absoluteczech's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 12th, 2006
      Location
      The Orange Crush
      Posts
      40,369
      Vehicles
      '18 Mazda CX-5
      11-19-2019 01:39 PM #14
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      How does that work when you start beating on them? I'd be willing to bet the Mk7 burns more fuel at the track than the 330ci.
      Good point wonder what it would be like.

      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      You're comparing very different generations. I mean our 1972 Oldsmobile with a 350 V8 did like 10 mpg and put of maybe 160hp? And don't forget the role of transmission in that as well. Apples to apples though, and I doubt you'll see much of a improvement if any in a 2.0T 4 versus something like an NA 3.0 NA V6 producing comparable power. There;s obviously a lower limit to what you can do with an NA, but for a typical road car, a turbo isn't giving you anything in terms of mpg.
      No opera cake for you. Yea I compared a modern Civic Si and it's pretty comparable.

      But I'll say this. I'll take a few less MPG for the extra low end torque modern turbos have

    16. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      2,710
      Vehicles
      982, F22, E88, etc.
      11-19-2019 01:39 PM #15
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      How does that work when you start beating on them? I'd be willing to bet the Mk7 burns more fuel at the track than the 330ci.
      Yeah, turbos just dump fuel in track driving. My Mk5 got around 8mpg and my 982 does 5-6, both being low 30mpg cars on the street. I think my Mk7 did better than those with the water cooled manifold, but I actually never checked. I'd still expect an E46 to do better on the track.

      The crazy thing is, direct injection helps so much with turbo MPG. IIRC a 930 would barely do double digits on the street.

    17. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      11,262
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      11-19-2019 01:45 PM #16
      Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
      Good point wonder what it would be like.



      No opera cake for you. Yea I compared a modern Civic Si and it's pretty comparable.

      But I'll say this. I'll take a few less MPG for the extra low end torque modern turbos have
      No doubt they're arguably better for daily driving because of the low end torque. That's not being debated. But the concept that they get better mpg than a comparable NA is very debatable, and in many cases will prove to be false.

      And I'm watching my waist this holiday season. Starting early on my summer bod!

    18. Member masa8888's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 5th, 2003
      Location
      Reston VA
      Posts
      8,328
      Vehicles
      2019 Audi Q8, 2000 911 Carrera, 2005 Audi TT 3.2 Quattro
      11-19-2019 01:48 PM #17
      A turbo 4 gets about the equivalent mileage to a NA V6 in my driving experience. Strap the turbo to a diesel, and it looks completely different. I normally get 5-10% worse FE compared to EPA ratings in gasoline cars (5% for NA, 10% for turbo), but 10-20% better FE in turbo diesels.

    19. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-19-2019 01:50 PM #18
      Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
      Good point wonder what it would be like.
      I haven't driven a Mk7 GTI hard, but I have driven a MkIV Jetta 1.8T fairly hard. Seeing how that's from the same era as the E46, it's a decent comparison.

      My 1.8T was 180HP stock, my 325i is 189HP, so it's close. Driving the MkIV hard I was able to consistently get the MPG into the very low double digits, 12-13MPG. I can't get my 325i anywhere close to that, lowest I've seen is 16-18.
      Instagram - efrie004

    20. Member Colty_CM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 17th, 2018
      Location
      Minneapolis
      Posts
      190
      Vehicles
      2011 Golf TDI 2 Door 6MT, 1997 VW Golf 5MT, GF's 2008 Rabbit Auto
      11-19-2019 01:54 PM #19
      Here's where I stand. I drive a TDI, had a V6 Passat, had a 1.8T Passat. The V6 Passat had similar mileage to the 1.8T that was down to variances in the route/drafting/how fast I was able to go/ect.

      A smaller engine will sip less flue at cruising speeds. Around town, it's all dependent on how you drive.

      If you care about FE, change how you drive first. I have a 2011 TDI, I can get 52mpg highway, or 42mpg. I can get 46mpg city/mixed or I can get 38. It's all about how much I'm screwing around.

      Relevant



      EDIT: Should add that my 1.8T Passat was auto compared to the manual V6 Passat which has much taller gearing than the auto 1.8T, which would support the idea that a FI low displacement engine is better for FE.
      Last edited by Colty_CM; 11-19-2019 at 02:01 PM.
      2011 Golf TDI 2 Door 6MT - 164k - Things wrong 0 -
      1997 Golf 5MT 4 Door - Things wrong - A lot - (project)
      GF's 2008 Rabbit 4 door Tiptronic - 187k - Things wrong 2 - Blower Motor (for first few seconds) and SAI - not bad
      Insta

    21. Senior Member 2.0T_Convert's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 23rd, 2009
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      21,196
      Vehicles
      Two fake rich sedans & one non-Prius hybrid
      11-19-2019 01:54 PM #20
      The justification for downsized turbos (IMO) is most buyers are not beating on them non-stop. Using Fuelly as a real world resource the typical downsized turbo vehicle is seeing average MPG improvements vs old generation V6 models.

      YMMV.
      Last edited by 2.0T_Convert; 11-19-2019 at 01:57 PM.

    22. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      2,710
      Vehicles
      982, F22, E88, etc.
      11-19-2019 02:09 PM #21
      Quote Originally Posted by 2.0T_Convert View Post
      The justification for downsized turbos (IMO) is most buyers are not beating on them non-stop.
      Yes, exactly. They do get worse MPG in hard use, but for many people that's isolated. I remember the Top Gear stunt where they put a Prius on track at 10/10 and paced an E92 behind it which did better on fuel. Nobody's going to argue that the E92 would do better for commuting.

      At any rate, even on a track day I typically have a 1-3 hr 'commute' to the track. The two times I've had the 982 to Lime Rock so far, I've done about 30-31 from Syracuse to Lakeville, 5-6 at LRP, and 29-30 on the way home (Eastbound vs Westbound). It averages out to about 18mpg for the day, which can't be far off what a 3.4L Cayman would do if you count the commute.

    23. Member yeayeayea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 29th, 2005
      Location
      So MD
      Posts
      11,574
      Vehicles
      02 M5, 01 M3(x2), 00 528i, 92 Toyota 4WD Pickup, 88 4Runner ,02 Sequoia, 91 Jetta, 95 gsx600
      11-19-2019 02:21 PM #22
      Quote Originally Posted by absoluteczech View Post
      I disagree. e46 330ci was around 220-230hp 3l inline 6 and was estimated at 20 city 30 highway. Take a mk7 gti that has around same hp and it will definitely get better mpg
      Direct injection for one.

      Weight for two.

      FWD vs RWD for three...

      A decade of age for four....

      Why are we comparing these two cars again?

    24. Member Karl_1340's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 1st, 2017
      Location
      Ottawa
      Posts
      670
      Vehicles
      2018 ATS 2.0T 6 speed manual, 2014 RDX, 1989 VW Cabriolet
      11-19-2019 02:24 PM #23
      I didn't get to watch the video, but I think it takes x amount of fuel to make x amount of hp.

      Here is two real world examples. Same driver. Same driving habits. Same location.

      2009 Mazda 65 3.7 V6 Automatic, 3600ish lbs, 272hp, 269lb-ft 35000kms



      2018 Cadillac ATS 2.0T, DI, 6MT, 3400ish lbs, 272hp, 295lb-ft 140000kms


      The Mazda was heavier(6%) and did not have the torque advantage, or fuel savings of Direct Injection that the Cadillac has, yet still is within 12% of the fuel economy.
      I think this shows that it would be very close in a more controlled experiment.

    25. Member cockerpunk's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 17th, 2010
      Location
      Twin Cities MN
      Posts
      6,683
      Vehicles
      #81 SM 1.6
      11-19-2019 02:49 PM #24
      Im always a fan of NA over FI ... that being said, his science is wrong here, and his example of the boxster/cayman is a poor one. he also is leaving out the fact that NA engines need to run rich as well when you push them, and that that isn't even a useful comparison in the first place.

      im far more a fan of NA for reliability, drivablity, and coolant system reasons, not power or efficiency reasons.
      Quote Originally Posted by ice4life View Post
      Sounds great. Maybe I'm just a fascist and didn't know it.. I don't know if I even care anymore.

    26. Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      33,660
      11-19-2019 02:50 PM #25
      Quote Originally Posted by 2.0T_Convert View Post
      The justification for downsized turbos (IMO) is most buyers are not beating on them non-stop. Using Fuelly as a real world resource the typical downsized turbo vehicle is seeing average MPG improvements vs old generation V6 models.

      YMMV.
      That's the answer. Camissa is an enthusiast and other enthusiasts watch his videos. Meanwhile the other 99% of the population are the ones who drives their vehicles like they are appliances, which is honestly just fine. The automobile was created to address a functionality desire, not to bring pleasure from working the transmission and clutch and feeling cornering G's. Have we enthusiasts benefited over the years? Of course, but for the vast majority of people modern downsized turbo engines really are saving fuel.

      I would also add that comparing based on peak power isn't right - the comparison should be based on average torque in the low to midrange. Compare that way and turbo engines look even better, and since 99% of driving in the public real world is in the low to midrange RPMs, that's what matters.

    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •